> So what do we do? First, recognize that this is a problem that cannot be solved on an individual level and requires collective action. We can advocate for these technologies to be regulated. We can adopt AI policies in our own projects that spell out acceptable and responsible uses. We can show up at city councils that pass sweetheart deals to bring in hyperscale data centers and push back.
Using the same cars analogy, things got better only because it finally became financially viable to manufacture and run electric vehicles.
Would running data centers on renewable energy make things better? Probably not much, I'm sure most are already looking into getting the cheapest energy sources anyways.
Regulation is probably coming though, once Google and Meta and Apple and Microsoft and every big corporation get their hands on as much data as humanly possible, be it through selling you Ray-Bans or by screenshotting your desktop every 10 seconds or by scanning all the images on your phone and sending the metadata to the cloud for "censorship and safety". For the past 5 years every big corporation has probably breached so many lines to acquire this data, and then at some point, they will lobby to make it harder for everyone else, as they have done so before.
I hate to sound defeatist, but there is genuinely very little we can do anymore. I'd love to hear comments on any actionable suggestions that can be done by any of us. Especially concerning this data breach issue which has never deterred the FAANG, worst case they'll pay a few million down the line from some class action lawsuits.
You only have 1 variable in your control, the time in-between follows. (I say this because there is no notification for "unfollowing" someone)
You need to represent 2 variables : the dot/dash to represent symbols, and the dit, the time in-between symbols.
If you want to do this you need some sort of 2nd action, a comment or a twitter like, that way we could represent the dot/dash with either action, and then space them out to time the silence.
Or you can use "Morse tap code" where two close knocks represent a dot, and if the gap between them is slightly longer it's a dash. That takes two knocks for one dot/dash but it works and is (was?) used in practice.
I think there will be a market for firms that aggressively market themselves as non-AI, and then as more people turn towards that human connection we'll go full circle
If you want human connection the legal system is not where you are going to find it, period.
I don't think there will be any such market for "non ai" law. If I'm involved with the legal system I just want out as quick as possible as cheap as possible.
Bad legal advice will keep you dealing with the legal system for much longer and at much greater cost. Something being cheap and quick upfront doesn't mean it will be cheap and quick by the end of the process.
Maybe, although I would be extremely hesitant to extrapolate from this one study and trust my legal life to an LLM. One thing that's worth noting, though, is that regardless of the quality of objective legal advice in the abstract, for a lot of smaller scale stuff the human connection actually is literally what is important. There are ambiguities in the law, which are not resolved deterministically but rather at the individual discretion of judges. Your lawyer, if they're any good at their job, knows the local judges and how they're likely to rule for given circumstances, which can influence their legal advice to you specifically.
The legals system is structurally based around manipulating text and its relations. It seems to me that the entire legal industry is the ideal use case for LLM's to take over.
Of course the legal system can gatekeep forever by design.
Nobody wants to pay their lawyers more than they have to. There will be a huge market for firms that can use AI to avoid charging clients for $1,000/hour junior associates.
This was tested in Singapore 10 years ago and successfully reduced the spread of Dengue fever by 77% and has not negatively impacted the ecosystem.
This isn't a project to eliminate all mosquitos. There are over 3600 species of mosquito - this project is only targeting one: Aedes aegypti, which spreads many diseases, and is in fact an invasive species. Anywhere you see an Aedes aegypti outside of North Africa, it was humans who brought it there in the first place. This project is just trying to undo that.
> Aedes aegypti, which spreads many diseases, and is in fact an invasive species. Anywhere you see an Aedes aegypti outside of North Africa, it was humans who brought it there in the first place.
My twisted brain spun out a version of this paragraph from some kind of parallel universe Hacker News (presumably where humans aren't the dominant species on the planet) that said:
> Homo sapiens, which spreads many diseases, and is in fact an invasive species. Anywhere you see a Homo sapiens outside of North Africa, it was humans who brought it there in the first place.
I think it's fun that my brain decided to come up spin the accepted African origin of humans and their proliferation around the world into this fun paragraph. No value judgement about humanity is implied.
It's impossible to prove this (or really anything in human health/global ecology) is safe. We cannot reliably predict what the true short and long term outcomes will be, but by and large, this seems like one of the less unsafe ecological modification projects based on the underlying technology.
In the FAQ they discuss how in most of its range this particular species is invasive, feeds almost exclusively on humans, and is not believed to be a major food source for predators.
If the LLM has knowledge of something, by design it can't help but divulge it. When will companies learn granting any kind of sensitive information access to an LLM is a moot point
What part of this article implied the LLM divulged sensitive information to a user? All it did was change your associated email if you impersonated the user
I've made it a habit now to use the --before=2026-05-30 flag when installing packages, where it'll pick the version released before the date you specify, I usually pick around 5 days ago
If supply-chain security is a concern yarn is the worst js package manager you can pick. It comes far down their priority list, below "just make things work without need for user input". Whatever you thought you configured will simply be ignored many times and that's considered a feature.
Go look in that projects issue tracker and commit log for changes to relevant configuration and you will know what I mean.
The agent that wrote that blog didn't do it unprompted. Even now it still publishes AI slop on its github-hosted blog under the alias "MJ Rathbun". This AI is an agent using someone API key, who's paying for its tokens, intentionally prompting it to generate content, and contribute to repos.
As much as we try to separate the LLM from the human, to me the fact remains that there's always the human factor that creates immense bias. If you give an LLM access to a blog, it will write blogs. If you give it access to a weather app, it will check the weather. Maybe we can talk about autonomy when we have an LLM with an infinite context window linked to hundreds of MCP servers that spends an immense amount of tokens to figure out how to act, but this example is simply an AI that had a few methods to call and picked one of them. The statistical probability of an AI that is plugged into a blogging platform, to write a blog, is immense.
When will people learn granting any kind of account access to an LLM is a moot point, if the LLM has knowledge of something, by design it can't help but divulge it
reply